{
  "id": 4153056,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES RALPH HINSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hinson",
  "decision_date": "2010-10-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 176A10",
  "first_page": "414",
  "last_page": "414",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "364 N.C. 414"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "691 S.E.2d 63",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2010,
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 125,
    "char_count": 1395,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.717,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41489117705317957
    },
    "sha256": "0175c217b8ec90453b5253738a9e5002b2dcd816e8d0e25339b18bc3e360b100",
    "simhash": "1:657d149862f346f5",
    "word_count": 214
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:08:37.384656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES RALPH HINSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by John R Scherer II and Katherine A. Murphy, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State-appellant.",
      "Teddy & Meekins, by Anne Bleyman, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES RALPH HINSON\nNo. 176A10\n(Filed 8 October 2010)\nDrugs\u2014 manufacturing methamphetamine \u2014 instruction or methods \u2014 no variance with indictment\nA decision of the Court of Appeals that a variance between the indictment charging that defendant manufactured methamphetamine by \u201cchemically combining and synthesizing precursor chemicals\u201d and a jury instruction on the possible methods of manufacturing methamphetamine constituted plain error was reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion that, while the trial court\u2019s instruction utilized slightly different words than those in the indictment, the import of the language in the indictment and that in the instruction was the same.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 203 N.C. App.-, 691 S.E.2d 63 (2010), finding error in a judgment entered 17 October 2008 by Judge James W. Morgan in Superior Court, Cleveland County, and ordering a new trial in part and remanding for resentencing. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 September 2010.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by John R Scherer II and Katherine A. Murphy, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State-appellant.\nTeddy & Meekins, by Anne Bleyman, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0414-01",
  "first_page_order": 508,
  "last_page_order": 508
}